Body set point
Replies
-
Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"4 -
Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
It's well known that people tend to gain weight back that they've recently lost. My personal experience is that you need to actively maintain FOREVER if you want to keep it off!8 -
Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.
No argument with any of that.
My point was that psychologically appealing theories with X amount of evidence have more impact and duration in the popular imagination than psychologically unpleasant ones with similar evidence (adjusted for some people enjoying perverse things, however). This, even if the thories eventually significantly debunked. Who doesn't love a good excuse, or a plausible rationalization? At least better than we like concrete evidence that our own voluntary choices have some serious downsides?
Magnifying that, often 3rd parties with something to market will exploit the psychologically appealing ideas in some way, spreading them further. (Can't make much money from an idea people don't want to adopt, though negatively-weighted ideas can be painted as "the thing we're fighting" in a marketing plan, of course.)
Not saying the above applies in a pure way to set point theory, but it might be in the mix.
For sure, I believe there are physiological/biological effects and forces to be reckoned with (including genetic ones), in weight gain, weight loss, weight maintenance. Physiology and psychology operate in the same body, and aren't *really* separate, either.3 -
psychod787 wrote: »Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.
No argument with any of that.
My point was that psychologically appealing theories with X amount of evidence have more impact and duration in the popular imagination than psychologically unpleasant ones with similar evidence (adjusted for some people enjoying perverse things, however). This, even if the thories eventually significantly debunked. Who doesn't love a good excuse, or a plausible rationalization? At least better than we like concrete evidence that our own voluntary choices have some serious downsides?
Magnifying that, often 3rd parties with something to market will exploit the psychologically appealing ideas in some way, spreading them further. (Can't make much money from an idea people don't want to adopt, though negatively-weighted ideas can be painted as "the thing we're fighting" in a marketing plan, of course.)
Not saying the above applies in a pure way to set point theory, but it might be in the mix.
For sure, I believe there are physiological/biological effects and forces to be reckoned with (including genetic ones), in weight gain, weight loss, weight maintenance. Physiology and psychology operate in the same body, and aren't *really* separate, either.
I'm not sure I see set point as "psychologically appealing". For me, if its true, it would mean I have messed up my life permanently and there's nothing I can permanently do about it. Not very appealing to me!3 -
psychod787 wrote: »Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.
No argument with any of that.
My point was that psychologically appealing theories with X amount of evidence have more impact and duration in the popular imagination than psychologically unpleasant ones with similar evidence (adjusted for some people enjoying perverse things, however). This, even if the thories eventually significantly debunked. Who doesn't love a good excuse, or a plausible rationalization? At least better than we like concrete evidence that our own voluntary choices have some serious downsides?
Magnifying that, often 3rd parties with something to market will exploit the psychologically appealing ideas in some way, spreading them further. (Can't make much money from an idea people don't want to adopt, though negatively-weighted ideas can be painted as "the thing we're fighting" in a marketing plan, of course.)
Not saying the above applies in a pure way to set point theory, but it might be in the mix.
For sure, I believe there are physiological/biological effects and forces to be reckoned with (including genetic ones), in weight gain, weight loss, weight maintenance. Physiology and psychology operate in the same body, and aren't *really* separate, either.
I'm not sure I see set point as "psychologically appealing". For me, if its true, it would mean I have messed up my life permanently and there's nothing I can permanently do about it. Not very appealing to me!
I see your point. I do think, though, that it can be a convenient reason that it's not even worth trying to lose weight, since it can't succeed long term; or that if we regain weight, it was our inevitable fate because of our "set point", not an outcome of choices: A rationalization, or excuse. I won't speak for you, but it seems as if for some of us humans, it's appealing to believe that unfavorable outcomes are not the result of choices one could've made differently, to get different outcomes.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.
No argument with any of that.
My point was that psychologically appealing theories with X amount of evidence have more impact and duration in the popular imagination than psychologically unpleasant ones with similar evidence (adjusted for some people enjoying perverse things, however). This, even if the thories eventually significantly debunked. Who doesn't love a good excuse, or a plausible rationalization? At least better than we like concrete evidence that our own voluntary choices have some serious downsides?
Magnifying that, often 3rd parties with something to market will exploit the psychologically appealing ideas in some way, spreading them further. (Can't make much money from an idea people don't want to adopt, though negatively-weighted ideas can be painted as "the thing we're fighting" in a marketing plan, of course.)
Not saying the above applies in a pure way to set point theory, but it might be in the mix.
For sure, I believe there are physiological/biological effects and forces to be reckoned with (including genetic ones), in weight gain, weight loss, weight maintenance. Physiology and psychology operate in the same body, and aren't *really* separate, either.
I'm not sure I see set point as "psychologically appealing". For me, if its true, it would mean I have messed up my life permanently and there's nothing I can permanently do about it. Not very appealing to me!
I see your point. I do think, though, that it can be a convenient reason that it's not even worth trying to lose weight, since it can't succeed long term; or that if we regain weight, it was our inevitable fate because of our "set point", not an outcome of choices: A rationalization, or excuse. I won't speak for you, but it seems as if for some of us humans, it's appealing to believe that unfavorable outcomes are not the result of choices one could've made differently, to get different outcomes.
I think the reason set point theory gets me down so much is that implies the opposite: you could have avoided pushing your set point up if you had never made the choice to overreat in the first place (assuming you became obese in adulthood), but now its up you can't bring it down again. So yes, its your fault, and no, you can't do anything about it (any more).
I advise depressed people not to talk to me! I will always find the worst case scenario!
Of course, I have met many people on here who have kept weight off for years, and I have read studies suggesting that even yo yo dieting is better for you than constant obesity, so I don't think all hope is lost. And after all, it's still just a theory.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.
No argument with any of that.
My point was that psychologically appealing theories with X amount of evidence have more impact and duration in the popular imagination than psychologically unpleasant ones with similar evidence (adjusted for some people enjoying perverse things, however). This, even if the thories eventually significantly debunked. Who doesn't love a good excuse, or a plausible rationalization? At least better than we like concrete evidence that our own voluntary choices have some serious downsides?
Magnifying that, often 3rd parties with something to market will exploit the psychologically appealing ideas in some way, spreading them further. (Can't make much money from an idea people don't want to adopt, though negatively-weighted ideas can be painted as "the thing we're fighting" in a marketing plan, of course.)
Not saying the above applies in a pure way to set point theory, but it might be in the mix.
For sure, I believe there are physiological/biological effects and forces to be reckoned with (including genetic ones), in weight gain, weight loss, weight maintenance. Physiology and psychology operate in the same body, and aren't *really* separate, either.
I'm not sure I see set point as "psychologically appealing". For me, if its true, it would mean I have messed up my life permanently and there's nothing I can permanently do about it. Not very appealing to me!
I see your point. I do think, though, that it can be a convenient reason that it's not even worth trying to lose weight, since it can't succeed long term; or that if we regain weight, it was our inevitable fate because of our "set point", not an outcome of choices: A rationalization, or excuse. I won't speak for you, but it seems as if for some of us humans, it's appealing to believe that unfavorable outcomes are not the result of choices one could've made differently, to get different outcomes.
I think the reason set point theory gets me down so much is that implies the opposite: you could have avoided pushing your set point up if you had never made the choice to overreat in the first place (assuming you became obese in adulthood), but now its up you can't bring it down again. So yes, its your fault, and no, you can't do anything about it (any more).
I advise depressed people not to talk to me! I will always find the worst case scenario!
Of course, I have met many people on here who have kept weight off for years, and I have read studies suggesting that even yo yo dieting is better for you than constant obesity, so I don't think all hope is lost. And after all, it's still just a theory.
At this stage, I think calling set point a theory is a little bit of an overstatement. It's complicated, but there are reasons some use the term "debunked" about it.
@psychod787's several posts upthread mention some of the factors that are meaningful, and he usually reasons in terms of "settling range" which is a less doom-laden view better supported by recent research. I don't know whether he has more to say about it on this thread, or other resources to suggest.
Personally, I'm interested in the research in an academic sense, but as a practical matter, I'm more focused on how I can make choices that maximize my odds of achieving what I want. I'm focused on what I can personally control, or at least influence. Unchangeable barriers aren't something that loom large in my mind: If I hit one experientially, I try to think about it only long enough to figure out whether/how to get around, over or under it. There's no point, IMO, in focusing on things I can't change. I won't speak for others, but obessing on those things, or catastrophizing about "what ifs", doesn't help me move in a positive direction, it just makes me feel worse in the moment. Not helpful. Experientially, being in year 4+ of maintenance at BMIs in the lower 20s, after 3 previous decades of obesity (just over the BMI line into class 1) is enough to convince me that "set point" is not some undefeatable thing, so I don't give it much mindshare on my own practical account, frankly. YMMV.5 -
I've just read two studies. Yoyo dieting is worse than obesity and vice versa. As a wise Moderator here says, this is not a research paper so I'm not going to post a list of references. There's a debate section for that.
I want to know what you think about Ghrelin Blowback. The first time, I crashed and burned. Ate it all back. This is my 2nd time and I've been maintaining a 100 lb weight loss for 1.5 years now. The first time I experienced Ghrelin Blowback and I had no idea what was happening with a hunger that would not be abated.
This time, I was ready. I edged my way down slowly (2.5 years) and I'm not noticing anything like I did the first go-around. The first time, I was eating fat, fat, fat because fat was where it was at. This time, I moderate my fat portions just like all of the rest of my portions. I have incorporated more greens every single day and that's really working for me. I don't get hungry like I did back in 2014.
The biggest loser people who ate it all back after dropping it was like it was hot. From my experience, edging my way down slowly has made all of the difference in the world.
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 909 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions